Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8927 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2019 10:24 AM
35 online now:
AZPaul3, Faith, jar, JonF, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Stile, Theodoric (8 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,280 Year: 15,316/19,786 Month: 2,039/3,058 Week: 413/404 Day: 17/63 Hour: 4/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   Jesus and his sacrifice is Satan’s test of man’s morality.
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 15 of 478 (774338)
12-16-2015 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Greatest I am
12-16-2015 6:27 AM


GIA writes:

Jesus and his sacrifice is Satan’s test of man’s morality.


No.

Justice is when the guilty is punished. Injustice is when the innocent is punished.

Yes.

Jesus, if you accept him as your savior, is you punishing the innocent instead of the guilty.

It is God the Father punishing the innocent instead of the guilty, with the innocent party willingly accepting the punishment.

Most, perhaps all Christians believe the dogma that says that it is good to accept Jesus’s sacrifice.

Yes.

That is exactly like saying that it is good to somehow gain from punishing an innocent man.

It is certainly good for the guilty person.

If you believe the Christian dogma of substitutionary atonement, then you pass Satan’s test and are ready for hell.

No.

Edited by kbertsche, : Cleanup formatting


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Greatest I am, posted 12-16-2015 6:27 AM Greatest I am has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 26 of 478 (774454)
12-17-2015 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
12-17-2015 6:36 PM


I think Ringo has made some important observations and comments here which we can expand on.

First, the imagery that Jesus (and John) uses in John 10 harkens back to the OT, where God is referred to as the "Shepherd" of His flock (Pss. 23, 80; Ecc. 12; Isa. 40; Jer. 31). Jesus applies this divine imagery to Himself. This would have been seen by His original audience as a strong, clear claim to Jesus' deity.

Second, as Ringo says, the imagery in the OT showed God as the protector of His flock, but not as actually giving His life for His flock. Jn 10:11 and 15 are somewhat ambiguous; they could be seen either as promising strong protection or as promising an actual sacrifice of His life:

quote:

John 10:11 ¶ “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

John 10:15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep.



But v. 17 removes any doubt:
quote:

John 10:17 This is why the Father loves me–because I lay down my life, so that I may take it back again.


Thus Jesus has extended the OT analogy and made it much richer. He is not only the shepherd-protector of His flock, He is a shepherd who will actually die for His flock and then come back to life.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 12-17-2015 6:36 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 12-18-2015 1:16 AM kbertsche has responded
 Message 44 by Greatest I am, posted 12-26-2015 1:05 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 29 of 478 (774481)
12-18-2015 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Faith
12-18-2015 1:16 AM


Faith writes:

OK. It does show that He claims to be God, which is a good point to try to make. But I don't see anything ambiguous about "laying down" one's life. It can only mean to die it seems to me.


In the context of the entirety of John 10, esp. 10:17, I agree with you. But Ringo's point is that Jesus was using an OT metaphor of God as a shepherd-protector (Ps 23, Is 40, etc), which had no suggestion of the shepherd dying. My point is that Jesus has appropriated the same OT metaphor, but has expanded it to include the sacrificial death of the shepherd-protector for the flock.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 12-18-2015 1:16 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 12-18-2015 11:27 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 40 of 478 (774599)
12-19-2015 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by deerbreh
12-18-2015 2:30 PM


deerbreh writes:

Where do you get this from? What I mean by that is where does it say that if you do not accept that Jesus died for our sins means that you are going to Hell?


Scripture is very clear on this, as Faith has shown.

From a logical standpoint, if Jesus in fact did die for our sins it does not make sense that unbelief in that act would condemn a person to hell - assuming you are saying unbelief is sin and that any sin puts a person in Hell. If unbelief is sin, is that sin not also not accounted for by the sacrifice of Jesus?

This is a good question. If Jesus died to pay for all of our sins, didn't He also pay for the sin of unbelief? This can be explained in a few different ways, and there are some slight variations among the various branches of Christendom. But most Evangelicals would agree with the following:

Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is sufficient to pay for all of the sins of everyone who ever has or ever will live. But it is effective in paying for the sins of only those who believe in Him. The penalty for all of our sins has already been paid, but this payment is only credited to the sinner's account if he believes in Jesus. If someone dies without faith in Christ, he dies "in his sins", and ends up paying the penalty of his own sins in hell.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by deerbreh, posted 12-18-2015 2:30 PM deerbreh has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by ringo, posted 12-19-2015 1:35 PM kbertsche has responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 42 of 478 (774609)
12-19-2015 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by ringo
12-19-2015 1:35 PM


ringo writes:

You have to cash the cheque.


Essentially, yes. The more common biblical descriptions of this "cashing the check" metaphor are believing, receiving, accepting, submitting, repenting.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by ringo, posted 12-19-2015 1:35 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 57 of 478 (775110)
12-28-2015 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Thugpreacha
12-28-2015 8:45 AM


Re: The Christmas Revolution
Phat writes:

Check it out and tell me what you think, Faith. (and everyone else)


Looks pretty good to me.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Thugpreacha, posted 12-28-2015 8:45 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 67 of 478 (775122)
12-28-2015 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Tangle
12-28-2015 2:04 PM


Tangle writes:

Forget certainty, there isn't even consistency. It's a hopeless mess where anything can be believed from the same words. It's obvious man-made bunkum that can can be seen directly from the text even before you get into the historicity of the thing.

But I note that both you and Faith failed to pick up the point that you both believe through prayer - talking to your god - that you have the correct interpretation. He's lying to at least one of you isn't he?


GDR and Faith interpret Scripture very differently in some places. I am somewhere between the two of them. Each of us believes that our interpretation is correct, but we also recognize that we may be wrong.

But I suspect that all three of us agree on most of the basic, central teachings in Scripture:
The character and nature of God
Man's sin and need for salvation
God's provision of salvation through Jesus
These things are pretty clear in Scripture, and hard to misinterpret. (Though it is true that even these things can be twisted and misinterpreted by various cults.)

But the things which GDR and Faith are arguing about at the moment (OT law and genocide) are in a different category. These are secondary issues, on which there are a number of different interpretations in Christendom. It is true that these secondary issues are difficult to interpret and understand. But the central teachings of Scripture are not.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Tangle, posted 12-28-2015 2:04 PM Tangle has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 73 of 478 (775133)
12-28-2015 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
12-28-2015 3:01 PM


Faith writes:

The problems come in when you pick and choose and both GDR and KB do that.


Faith, please do not misrepresent me. Saying that I "pick and choose" is just as inaccurate as GDR saying that you (or I) "worship the Bible". My view of inspiration and inerrancy is essentially the same as your own. Where you and I differ is in our interpretation of a few passages, primarily the early chapters of Genesis.

Biblical interpretation is complicated if we want to do it carefully and accurately. Yes, some teachings (like the basic message of Scripture) are so simple and straightforward that even a child can understand them. But other secondary issues are so difficult that the best biblical scholars have differing opinions of the correct interpretations.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 12-28-2015 3:01 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 12-31-2015 2:00 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 86 of 478 (775193)
12-29-2015 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by GDR
12-29-2015 12:17 PM


GDR writes:

I have no problem believing in evolution. I do have a problem believing in an evolutionary process that is a result of endless mindless processes from mindless particles.

What then do atheists believe about abiogenesis or the ultimate basis for the evolutionary process?


On this topic, I recommend the lecture "Beyond the 'Evolution' vs. 'Creation' Debate" by Denis Lamoureux. Denis argues that the big divide between theists and atheists is not creation vs evolution, but teleology vs dysteleology. (You can find more of Denis' lectures here.)

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by GDR, posted 12-29-2015 12:17 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by GDR, posted 12-29-2015 8:06 PM kbertsche has responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 94 of 478 (775204)
12-29-2015 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by GDR
12-29-2015 8:06 PM


GDR writes:

I listened to that and I also own and have read his book "I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution". The only question that i would have with him is on his Biblical view. What does he mean when he calls the Bible inspired by God. I have probably differ with him somewhat on that as yes I believe that God does communicate wisdom to people, but in the case of the Bible, I would agree that God inspired writers to write but which in my view does not mean that they always got it correct.


Denis' view of inspiration is quite conservative. He holds to the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture. His view is that the writers DID get it all correct. But he distinguishes between the timeless "message" of Scripture and the temporal and cultural "incidental" details which were used to communicate the message to the original audience.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by GDR, posted 12-29-2015 8:06 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by GDR, posted 12-30-2015 5:36 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 155 of 478 (775441)
01-01-2016 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by GDR
01-01-2016 4:32 PM


GDR writes:

Here is what wiki says.
quote:
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists
This pretty much agrees with your position, although frankly I don't get it. Can you explain to me why it is that atheists are so vehemently opposed to saying that they believe that there is nothing but natural processes and that no deity exists. I could just as easily say that I don't believe that humans along with the rest of the world are strictly the result of natural mindless processes.

I would have thought that if you can't make the I believe statement that you would be considered an agnostic. However, this is a matter of interest and in the end we both know where you stand on the subject.

GDR, I recommend that you look at the thread "Does Atheism = No Beliefs?". You'll see that not all atheists view atheism the same way.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by GDR, posted 01-01-2016 4:32 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by GDR, posted 01-01-2016 9:44 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 165 of 478 (775456)
01-02-2016 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by GDR
01-01-2016 10:57 PM


Re: misrepresentation
GDR writes:


Well is Jesus the "Word" of God or is the Bible the "Word" of God.


Both. Jesus is the LIVING Word of God and Scripture is the WRITTEN Word of God.

The Gospel of John tells us that the "Word" became flesh in Jesus. It cannot be both as you cannot reconcile the god of the flood and other atrocities with the God the Father that we see incarnate in the life and words of Jesus. I know that you think you can but the two visions of God are irreconcilable.

I agree that there is some tension here, but not that the issue is "irreconcilable". There are a number of approaches to reconciling these things.

Again I go back to the notion that the flood itself is bad enough but the idea that Yahweh would command His followers to slaughter women and children would put Him in the same category as Pol Pot if it were true. And again, why would anyone who hates evil worship a god like that.

If God really is God, He knows and understands much more than we do. Some of His actions may be difficult for us to understand, and may even seem "wrong". But if we know and trust Him, we can trust that He knows what He's doing here, too.

FYI, Charlie Trimm gave a good talk at the 2013 ETS meeting on "Genocide and Inerrancy". I believe he went over about five different proposals for viewing OT genocide. The only link I can find to it costs $4: http://www.wordmp3.com/details.aspx?id=15937. If you are interested, maybe I can hunt down my notes and summarize them.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by GDR, posted 01-01-2016 10:57 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Bob Bobber, posted 01-02-2016 1:13 AM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 167 by GDR, posted 01-02-2016 2:04 AM kbertsche has responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 177 of 478 (775491)
01-02-2016 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by GDR
01-02-2016 2:04 AM


Re: misrepresentation
GDR writes:

kbertsche writes:


I agree that there is some tension here, but not that the issue is "irreconcilable". There are a number of approaches to reconciling these things.


But there are none that justify genocide.

How can you be so sure? Have you examined all of the approaches to reconciling these issues and proven them all false?

If it can be justified then how do we know that it isn't God's will that we should nuke into oblivion Islamic countries today? It is because of Jesus that we know it is wrong but with an inerrant Bible we can't know as God was like that then so He very well could be like that again now.

We also know this is wrong from the OT command "Thou shalt not murder". God is still the same as He was in the OT.

The differences are irreconcilable.

So you say, repeatedly. But this doesn't make it true.

It is always dangerous for fallible, finite humans to make such absolute pronouncements where a perfect, infinite God is involved.


It isn't God that you are know and trust. Your trust is in an inerrant Bible.

Why do you think it must be one or the other? Why not both!

If we know and trust God, doesn't it follow that we will also trust what He says (His Word)?

IMHO you have made an idol out of the Bible,

No, this is nonsense. Trusting the Bible is not at all the same as worshiping it.

We come to know and trust God primarily through the Bible. If the Bible were not trustworthy, how would we come to a correct knowledge of God?

The OT has many, many passages which stress trustworthiness and reliability of the Word of God. The last part of Psalm 19 gives six short descriptions praising the written Word of God. Psalm 119 is a much longer composition which praises the written Word of God.

and again IMHO if you believe that God is capable of genocide and public stonings then I would also humbly suggest that you don't know Him at all.

And I would suggest that by cutting these difficult passages out of the Bible you are making God too simple and one-dimensional. You seem to know Him, but you are limiting your knowledge and understanding of Him by imposing your own short-sighted limits on Him.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by GDR, posted 01-02-2016 2:04 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 183 of 478 (775612)
01-03-2016 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Thugpreacha
01-03-2016 7:25 AM


Re: Can't have it both ways
Phat writes:


I have an open question for all:
IF God foreknew every future action, would that in and of itself be a problem?
I know that one can easily argue that it wipes out free will, but so what?

From our point of view we are still choosing how to act.


I don't see why this would be a problem.

Further, I believe the argument that this would wipe out free will is fallacious. I can look through the window and see something happen, but this does not mean that I caused or determined it. Likewise, God can look through the window of time and see what will happen in the future, but this does necessarily not mean that He caused or determined it. I don't see how prescience destroys free will. (I think the open theists who make this claim are confusing themselves with the concept of infinity, similar to the math paradoxes that one gets by multiplying and dividing by zero.)

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-03-2016 7:25 AM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-03-2016 7:58 AM kbertsche has responded
 Message 186 by GDR, posted 01-03-2016 5:57 PM kbertsche has responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 185 of 478 (775625)
01-03-2016 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Thugpreacha
01-03-2016 7:58 AM


Re: Can't have it both ways
Phat writes:

the basic counterargument is that we can never do anything apart from His foreknowledge...but I have no problem with that. After all, why would i want to do such a thing? Im not satan, after all.


I have no problem with this, either. And I don't see why it should be a problem at all.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-03-2016 7:58 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

    
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019